Malcolm wrote:
lhun grub is not a phenomena, and has nothing to with with phenomena. Phenomena are a result of ignorance that does not recognize the basis. Lhun grub is one of the three wisdoms inherent to the basis, the visible side. Ka dag is the emptiness aspect of the basis, the non-visible side. Energy/compassion is the inseperability of those two.

This is an interesting statement. I feel that if you can expand upon this, it will clear up a confusion I have.

If lhundrub is not phenomena, how is it different from kadag?

If lhundrub refers to something "visible," how can that not be phenomena? (I would think phenomena implies perceivability)

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. So based on your current readings Malcolm, does Advaita actually say that brahman is real/ultimate/truly existent?

Some would hold the basis as lhun grub, and lhun grub as a self. This is one of the six perspectives about the basis which the Dzogchen tantras reject,

You can find statements by Advaita authors that define brahmin as real, you can also find statements by advaita authors which deny this kind of real existence to brahman in their effort to show that brahmin goes beyond all limitations. Advaita, like everything, is not monolithic.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

xabir wrote:Brahman is an ultimate reality that is beyond notions of existence and non-existence, because Brahman is deemed as a transcendental, unchanging and independent ultimate reality that cannot be accessed with concepts. It is attributeless pure consciousness.
[/i]

The nirvana of the early Buddhists is an attributeless unconditioned consciousness as Peter Harvery very eloquently shows in his The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
The nirvana of the early Buddhists is an attributeless unconditioned consciousness as Peter Harvery very eloquently shows in his The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism.

The point is not pure consciousness. There is nothing wrong with pure consciousness. It is making it into an ultimate reality, ultimate ground, a transcendental essence that is despite being said to be beyond conceptual notions yet clung to as truly existent (despite how they want to phrase it being beyond notions of existence etc which is simply trying to express the non-conceptuality of that reality, it will always be treated as an ontological essence which therefore leads to clinging to the ultimate ground).

I do not believe Theravada talks about consciousness as an ultimate ground, and the Buddha actually rejected the view of making nirvana into a source right in MN 1 and Thanissaro Bhikkhu made a good commentary on it.

In any case, I have always understood the Nirvana of early Buddhists to be the cessation of craving, aggression and ignorance.
SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.

And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.

And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.

And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.

And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.

And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.

And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.

And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.

And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.

And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.

And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.

And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.

And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.

And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.

And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.

And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.

And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.

And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.

And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.

And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.

And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.

And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.

And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.

And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.

And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.

And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.

And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.

And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.

And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.

And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.

And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.

And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.

And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.

Last edited by xabir on Tue May 22, 2012 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

The parallels are by no means arbitrary. In fact the Buddhist passage appears in a specifically Brahmanical context. The text is the Kevaddha Sutta (Digha Nikaya 11: text here, translation here, parallels here.) A monk wants to find out where the four Great Elements (mahābhūta) end, and goes to Brahma for the answer. Brahma, however, doesn’t know, and he sends the monk back to the Buddha. The Buddha rejects the original question, and tells the monk how it should be reformulated.

The basic idea is clear enough. Brahma’s realm extends as far as jhana, as Buddhists assume that the Brahmanical philosophy was based on jhanic experience (at best). So Brahma doesn’t know what lies beyond this, while the Buddha does.

The problem is that, apparently, what lies beyond is a kind of consciousness. Given the evident connections between this description and the Brahmanical conception of the higher atman as a form of infinite consciousness, the most obvious inference is that it refers to the formless attainments, specifically that of ‘infinite consciousness’, where the ‘four great elements’ don’t find a footing.

It is in the next lines of the verse, which are usually overlooked by the viññāṇa = Nibbana school, that the Buddha’s true position is stated. With the cessation of viññāṇa all this comes to an end. The ‘infinite consciousness’ is merely the temporary escape from the oppression of materiality, but true liberation is the ending of all consciousness.

...

The problem is not so much the interpretation of viññāṇa as such, but the syntax of the verses – which is one reason why poetry should not decide doctrine. The Buddha rephrases the original question, but his rephrasing has three question words and two verbs. It may be read as a single complex question, but this assumes that the two verbs mean the same thing (which they don’t: na gādhati means ‘does not find a firm footing’, like a man crossing a ford, while uparujjhati means ‘ceases’) – and that viññāṇa means ‘infinite consciousness of Nibbana’ in the first occurrence and ‘separative sense consciousness’ in the second.

If you understand atman to mean your primodial potentality, for example the way the word bdag nyid chen po (mahātman) is used in Sems sde and so on, then there is no real difference. Just as if one understands "God" in these terms, then there is no problem.

Last edited by Malcolm on Tue May 22, 2012 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -

Malcolm wrote:If you understand atman to mean your primodial potentality, for example the way the word bdag nyid chen po (mahātman) is used in Sems sde and so on, then there is no real difference. Just as if one understands "God" in these terms, then there is no problem.

Honestly if you listen to Hindu masters each one is completely different. No point talking about them as they are all like magpies collecting whatever shiny things from everywhere, dsiagreeing even within the same subschools. But that is the Indian way. The closest one to Buddhist teaching was Nisargadata and you have to substitute his search for the "SELF" with "real nature of the mind" in Mahamudra/Dzogchen. He didn't like Hindu mainstream ideas apart from his guru yoga (Lierally guru yoga) on his guru. He rarely spoke about Hindu gods and such but then said ultimately these are all illusions and forget about these. He didn't even like God that much and said it is just our "SELF" and really didn't like reincarnation, karma etc. either and said these are details and not how you think.

He lived as a simple shop keeper selling bidis (dirt cheap cigarettes) and refused positions and people visited him above his shop in his tiny home. Yet the great orthodox Hindu masters respected him greatly for some reason, instead of asking people to lynch him. But even then what he talks about is really preliminary Dzogchen view stuff and of course not techniques. He was apparently self realized after merely being asked to investigate his real self (real nature of mind to us) by his guru. You will each get a random quote below, or upon reloading the page, but even this is basic stuff compared to Mahamudra/Dzogchen though have to give the guy respect as was probably a tulku for the sake of Hindus:http://www.mpeters.de/nisargadatta/index.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

username wrote:
Honestly if you listen to Hindu masters each one is completely different. No point talking about them as they are all like magpies collecting whatever shiny things from everywhere, dsiagreeing even within the same subschools. But that is the Indian way. The closest one to Buddhist teaching was Nisargadata and you have to substitute his search for the "SELF" with "real nature of the mind" in Mahamudra/Dzogchen. He didn't like Hindu mainstream ideas apart from his guru yoga (Lierally guru yoga) on his guru. He rarely spoke about Hindu gods and such but then said ultimately these are all illusions and forget about these. He didn't even like God that much and said it is just our "SELF" and really didn't like reincarnation, karma etc. either and said these are details and not how you think.

He lived as a simple shop keeper selling bidis (dirt cheap cigarettes) and refused positions and people visited him above his shop in his tiny home. Yet the great orthodox Hindu masters respected him greatly for some reason, instead of asking people to lynch him. But even then what he talks about is really preliminary Dzogchen view stuff and of course not techniques. He was apparently self realized after merely being asked to investigate his real self (real nature of mind to us) by his guru. You will each get a random quote below, or upon reloading the page, but even this is basic stuff compared to Mahamudra/Dzogchen though have to give the guy respect as was probably a tulku for the sake of Hindus:http://www.mpeters.de/nisargadatta/index.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nisargadatta holds a lineage of the Nath Sampradaya that traces back to Goraknath-- one of the 84 Mahasiddhas. He practiced the teachings of his lineage and realized them according to his guru's instructions. Hindu? Buddhist? What bothersome labels.

"Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour."
-Padmasambhava

Buddhist's point was that Gaudapada copied it, rebranded it and presented as something new of his own. Plus he came much much later than centuries of Buddhist philosphical debates he "ripped off" without quoting the sources. Sort of intellectual theft and plagiarism.

username wrote:
Nisargadatta holds a lineage of the Nath Sampradaya that traces back to Goraknath-- one of the 84 Mahasiddhas. He practiced the teachings of his lineage and realized them according to his guru's instructions. Hindu? Buddhist? What bothersome labels.

He doesn''t as he is reborn as someone/something else or in bardos as for upholding his lineage I doubt that it as his teachings were quite different, if not opposed, to his guru's.

mzaur wrote:
Then you haven't understood the essence of Dharma. Emptiness is the insight which liberates, not a meaningless concept. Ramana Maharshi would would cling to the Self and sink into a vegetative state for weeks so that his disciples would have to feed him and wipe his butt. Are you saying Maharshi lacked direct experience? He had plenty of it.

This ranks with the most foolish things I have read on this forum. Ramana experienced nirvikalpa samadhi for long stretches during his youth. This is not the "vegetative state" known as jada samadhi . Instead, this is exactly the same as bringing the winds into the central channel at the heart and remaining there. It is a state of deep realization. He did not have disciples at this time.. he was a simple sadhu living in a temple in Tiruvannamalai. Some of the other sadhus would look after him as he would get picked on by neighbourhood children.

When Ramanashram grew up around him, he constantly met with devotees and taught. There was no point during this period he spent weeks in nirvikalpa samadhi incapacitated.

username wrote:
Nisargadatta holds a lineage of the Nath Sampradaya that traces back to Goraknath-- one of the 84 Mahasiddhas. He practiced the teachings of his lineage and realized them according to his guru's instructions. Hindu? Buddhist? What bothersome labels.

He doesn''t as he is reborn as someone/something else or in bardos as for upholding his lineage I doubt that it as his teachings were quite different, if not opposed, to his guru's.

mzaur wrote:
Then you haven't understood the essence of Dharma. Emptiness is the insight which liberates, not a meaningless concept. Ramana Maharshi would would cling to the Self and sink into a vegetative state for weeks so that his disciples would have to feed him and wipe his butt. Are you saying Maharshi lacked direct experience? He had plenty of it.

This ranks with the most foolish things I have read on this forum. Ramana experienced nirvikalpa samadhi for long stretches during his youth. This is not the "vegetative state" known as jada samadhi . Instead, this is exactly the same as bringing the winds into the central channel at the heart and remaining there. It is a state of deep realization. He did not have disciples at this time.. he was a simple sadhu living in a temple in Tiruvannamalai. Some of the other sadhus would look after him as he would get picked on by neighbourhood children.

When Ramanashram grew up around him, he constantly met with devotees and taught. There was no point during this period he spent weeks in nirvikalpa samadhi incapacitated.